In reply to Re: Trotsky, posted by Sigismund on January 24, 2009, at 1:16:24

> With all due respect to Dr Bob, are we going to talk about all the things we approve of in the new administration?> > Wer should be able to remember the Bush Administration for a few years. > It's more than one already, and I still remember Howard.

I've thought about your concerns....I don't know if we'll have a little more freedom now to discuss politics. I doubt it.

In reply to Re: Trotsky » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on January 24, 2009, at 9:52:13

The rules here are the same as always. The civility guidelines still apply to politicians who were formerly in office because they would still have supporters.

A good rule of thumb when posting would be to substitute a politician you support, or a group of citizens you feel should be protected, into your post in place of whoever it is you're talking about. If you can see that posting that about that person or that group of people would not be civil or conducive to a supportive atmosphere at Babble, that would be a good sign you probably should not post it. It isn't foolproof of course, but it would be a good start.

So say you believe that Congressman Smith is the best thing that happened to Congress in your lifetime, and Congressman Jones will singlehandedly bring down democracy if not stopped.

It would be fine to say "I think Congressman Smith is the best thing that happened to Congress in my lifetime." This is fine, even if others may disagree or feel defensive of Congressman Jones.

It would not be ok to say "Congressman Jones will singlehandedly bring down democracy if not stopped." If it helps to make this distinction, mentally substitute the words. "Congressman Smith will singlehandedly bring down democracy if not stopped." If this would seem offensive to you, as a fervent supporter of Congressman Smith, it is likely against site guidelines to say about Congressman Jones.

Or say that you are a Martian and have felt your way of life threatened by Venusians, or have felt put down by Venusians. And vice versa. If you are about to post something about Martians, substitute Venusians into your proposed post, and see if you would consider it civil. If not, it is likely against site guidelines.

I recognize that it is common to believe that one's position is true, and that all evidence points to the fact that one's position is true. Putting aside any arguments of "truth", truth is not a reason for incivility on Babble. I am fat and ugly. If someone cared about me, and suggested that I might want to watch my diet for the sake of my health, or that my eyes would look pretty with a bit of makeup, this would not be uncivil. If someone cared about me, and told me I was fat and ugly and I'd always be fat and ugly unless I do something about it, that may be loving, but it is uncivil under site guidelines. If someone were to just call me fat and ugly, it is absolutely true, but that does not make it civil under site guidelines.

Again, this is not foolproof since some people will obviously have different thresholds than the civility guidelines. However it is a good rule of thumb, and one we often use when assessing the incivility of a post.

This post is not directed at anyone in particular. I have been thinking about this topic for a while. Any "you" in my post is a universal you, not a specific you.

In reply to Freedom to discuss politics, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 11:12:24

As a two finger typist with a serious problems with my back and concentration, I thank you (in the abstract) Dinah for your extensive clarification.

Nice to see you around.

I grew up in a family where everyone spoke about politics routinely and have done so out of habit ever since, and I'm always surprised when people don't.

I have never found the civility rules an absolute impediment to expression here (although I make an exception for Harold Pinter's opinions about US foreign policy). Rather, they encourage reflection and ingenuity, and all things considered, are a good thing.

In reply to Re: Freedom to discuss politics » Dinah, posted by Sigismund on January 24, 2009, at 13:54:46

Hmmm... Appreciate has a few nuanced meanings doesn't it. It's something that could be meant as "I really appreciate that you *try*." However, I didn't mean it in that sense. Without words and emphasis on words it can be difficult to read those nuances.

In reply to Re: Freedom to discuss politics » Dinah, posted by Sigismund on January 24, 2009, at 13:09:50

> I grew up in a family where everyone spoke about politics routinely and have done so out of habit ever since, and I'm always surprised when people don't.

My dad and I used to sit around and talk about politics and religion for hours. He used to love to bedevil me by taking an opposing point of view, to the extent of changing sides midstream if necessary. I used to think it was his love of a good lively argument and an enjoyment of seeing steam come from my ears. Which it probably was. But now I'm a parent I find myself doing the same thing, although less argumentatively of course. My purpose tends to be that I want him to understand my view that issues that are hotly contested are often complex, and that good people often hold opposing points of view.

Forgive me if I've told this story before. I like remembering my father.

And I must also confess that the conversations we held could not have taken place on Babble under the civility rules. And that I'm totally ok with that.

In reply to Re: Freedom to discuss politics » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 14:26:53

Last year was the hundredth anniversary of the transfer of the Belgian Congo from being the personal property of King Leopold to being the property of the Belgian people.A good proportion of the people of the Belgian Congo died so that they could enjoy the benefits of Christianity and progress (such being the rationale, and the rubber). My daughter has a history book with the saddest photo in the world in it: A black man staring forlornly at the foot of his little daughter, cut off because of non-compliance with the rubber quota.

So, given our history and inheritance, perhaps we are not doing so badly.

In reply to Re: Freedom to discuss politics » Sigismund, posted by Dinah on January 24, 2009, at 14:35:07

"I grew up in a family where everyone spoke about politics routinely and have done so out of habit ever since, and I'm always surprised when people don't."

- Dinah-------------------Good for you. My parents discussed politics too, although they were not a healthy couple so probably not the best example. Still, much better (for me) than growing up in a household that discusses Hollywood.

I noticed Western Europeans to be very open about politics. I've met strangers in Europe who bring up politics right away in casual conversation. This includes 16 year old kids in bars..talking politics over a frosty mug!

I think it's very negative that here in the U.S. its culturally taboo to discuss such things openly. The political social mores here are just one thing that I believe, are partly responsible for why problems don't get solved.